Wouldn't Shapiro have to be a Christian to be considered a heretic?

Also, Owens is unhinged.

Owens is a grifter who burns bridges everywhere she goes.

Her understanding of Christianity is superficial at best and she's only utilizing it now to achieve fame.

Edit: and I'll add that Shapiro is hypocritical in his approach to Christianity, but that's a whole other topic. And his show is basically unwatchable now because it's all Israel all the time.

Shapiro threw a fit and walked out of an interview on live TV because a BBC reporter was asking him tough questions.

Owens is just a nut, through and through. One of many unpleasant, hateful, divisive figures in the American conservative movement.

and yet, Shapiro is still more civil and less divisive than many of his right wing media counterparts.

NowhereMan said:

---

his heretical view of Jesus

---

Shapiro is a Jew. Judaism considers Christianity to be heretical. You really ought to know that already.

Shapiro is a charlatan who has made his wealth behind debating room IQ liberal arts 20 year old students and DEI hires with degrees from Sarah Lawrence. His Zionism is wholly incompatible with being an American, and he serves as a huge gatekeeper for the conservative movement by making sure anyone who questions Israel is ostracized.

I've never liked Candace Owens mainly because from the little I've seen she's the bog basic photogenic black person who says a few boilerplate statements and is lauded as the next big thing by conservative inc.

Quote:

---

His Zionism is wholly incompatible with being an American

---

How?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

His Zionism is wholly incompatible with being an American

---

How?

---

He has more of an allegiance to Israel than he does to the United States, which makes sense given that the founding thought process of Zionism as espoused by Theodor Herzl were that the jews were a diaspora people and that those who were able to move to the homeland should do so, except for those who were able to advocate for the homeland, they should stay where they were as a means to secure support for the homeland.

I get it, I'm more Catholic than I am American, I have more of an allegiance to the Catholic church than I do to the USA; but my Catholicism does not include advocating nor lobbying for Pro-Vatican City legislation nor involvement. Given that the USA has a distinctly Christian heritage, my Catholicism isn't at odds with what is best for the country; the same is not true for Israel/Judaism.

Quote:

---

He has more of an allegiance to Israel than he does to the United States

---

Based on what? The simple fact he's Jewish?

Also, many Americans in the early Republic would laugh hysterically at your claim that your Catholicism is not in conflict with your American allegiance.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

He has more of an allegiance to Israel than he does to the United States

---

Based on what? The simple fact he's Jewish?

Also, many Americans in the early Republic would laugh hysterically at your claim that your Catholicism is not in conflict with your American allegiance.

---

Those same Americans would laugh at the idea that citizenship should be offered to anyone who wasn't a white man of good character; what does this tell us?

The fact that he's a zionist, and advocates for American involvement in Israel based on what is best for Israel and not what is best for America. Again, this shouldn't be shocking if you believe that Zionists hold the belief that Israel is the promised homeland for all jews. If there's ever a war against some newly formed Papal State; throw me in an internment camp; because I'm on that side.

It tells us that assuming someone doesn't have the best interests of the United States at heart because they also happen to have deep ties to another place/group is often a fallacious assumption. The US has valid reasons of national security and interest in supporting states like Israel in the region. Assuming Shapiro puts Israel ahead of the U.S. sounds a lot like a "dual loyalty" charge that has a long and ugly history, and one that Catholics have faced (look up the Know-Nothings and Thomas Nast cartoons).

Sapper Redux said:

---

It tells us that assuming someone doesn't have the best interests of the United States at heart because they also happen to have deep ties to another place/group is often a fallacious assumption. The US has valid reasons of national security and interest in supporting states like Israel in the region. Assuming Shapiro puts Israel ahead of the U.S. sounds a lot like a "dual loyalty" charge that has a long and ugly history, and one that Catholics have faced (look up the Know-Nothings and Thomas Nast cartoons).

---

I loathe politics except as freak show entertainment, but I think this is a good question. Christians say that you can't serve two masters. You might be able to get away with it as long as both your masters have a common interest and goal. However, at some point a choice must be made. As DeProfundis said, he has loyalty to America and the Vatican, but if there is conflict he will choose the Vatican. I'd say the same for myself in a more abstract way. I'm American and Christian, and if that conflicts then I'm picking the Christian part. I think it's fair to ask if someone has divided loyalties.

For instance, does Ben Shapiro want to influence America to benefit Israel to the detriment of America? I don't see what the US gains from supporting Israel in the Gaza conflict aside from a few more dollars for some weapons makers. There is certainly no tangible or strategic benefit for us, and likely much the opposite with all the political blowback across the world. So if someone is pushing for America to go all in supporting Israel in this conflict, I would get a little suspicious about their real loyalties

Quote:

---

I don't see what the US gains from supporting Israel in the Gaza conflict aside from a few more dollars for some weapons makers. There is certainly no tangible or strategic benefit for us, and likely much the opposite with all the political blowback across the world.

---

I'm absolutely not a fan of how Israel has handled the war, but I'd say that based on the regional support against the Iranian response that there's more going on geopolitically than we may grasp. Arab states have this weird dance they do where Israel provides a useful foil to keep their people upset at an external, but regional, non-Muslim enemy while their actual fear is Iranian influence with militias and terrorists who destabilize the region. Israel's war with Hamas and Hezbollah is likely not something the Jordanians, Egyptians, and Saudis are actually very upset about. And the US stepping in to work with all parties does advance our interests.

US no longer has any geopolitical interest in the ME. Our objective is to exit.

We absolutely have an interest in maintaining stability in the region and limiting Iranian, Chinese, and Russian influence.

Were the worlds largest exporter of refined products and a net exporter of oil. We consume no oil directly from the region - the stability helped us preserve our allies in Europe during the Cold War. Instability helps our exports, makes Europe more dependent on our exports, and most importantly directly hurts China. Our interest as this point is more in instability.

The strategy requires either a regional hegemony or regional parity between rivals. I don't think Israel can be a regional hegemon - so accordingly our strategy seems to be regional parity. That means an impasse of equal balance between Saudi, Israel, Iran is our best option. Which incidentally explains most of our recent behavior.

You're fooling yourself if you think instability hurts China or Russia. Russia used instability in Syria to entrench itself in the region and back actors who would harm the United States. Nor would instability automatically mean Europe turns to the United States. A retreating US would make them look to other partners and potentially harm our businesses.

Half of China oil comes from the Persian gulf. They are the largest importer of oil from both Saudi and Iran. I don't see how anyone can imagine that instability doesn't hurt China… who imports over 2/3 of their energy.

Less than 10% of US oil comes from the Middle East, by comparison.

Our interest in the Middle East was to protect our partners economically in the Cold War. We no longer have any real interest in subsidizing the world both economically and militarily. Thats why we're generally withdrawing, and will continue to do so. The deal we struck during the Cold War - guarantor of maritime trade, guarantor of stability, enabler of globalization, at great economic cost… in exchange for writing security policy against the Soviet Union - is no longer one we're interested in.

In a world with interrupted energy flows from ME what are European options? Russia or the US.. and.. what else?

You're fighting last century's war.

Shrug. If you say so. Not a single iota of our economic dominance, power, or prestige comes from policing the Middle East.

China is a declining power facing demographic collapse that can't feed itself or keep the lights on without us.

Russia is much the same, demographic collapse fighting their twilight war with essentially no future ability to project power. They're done being a global power.

And I told you - we don't want to police the ME, and there is no single entity that we feel can do it without us, so the conclusion is a balance. So.. yeah… we want a balance of power between smaller entities. Which may mean we want Iranian power in the region to increase, to a certain amount.

Again. You're fighting the last century's wars.

It's a global economy for everyone except the US. Exports and imports are around 25% of our GDP but the vast majority of that is regional. Globalization js something we enabled against our own economic interests for our own security interests. We no longer have those security interests.

No one is saying retreat to a bubble or be isolationists. I'm saying we have no direct US geopolitical interest in the ME. The only one you can come up with is Iran Russia and China might be mean to us. Or nuke us? Or something? Does not compute.

Your argument amounts to we have interests there because we have an interest in global hegemony because we have interest in being the global hegemon. It's tautological.

I'm not so much interested or allergic to the isolationist label. To me it creates an arbitrary dividing line without any real value. We shouldn't pursue or avoid isolationism as an end in itself. We should pursue our interests, which may look like isolation in one instance and active involvement in the next.

The issue with the ME is there is minimum direct US interest in the region. What value it held for us was indirect for our partners in Europe, and in propping up the global system we created for our own net benefit (military benefit, at great economic cost). When that calculus changes - and it has - we absolutely should re-evaluate. The only compelling reason to continue to be involved in the ME is to prevent potential horrific loss of life and bloodshed. But, that comes at a cost of (relatively fewer) US lives and money.

Sustained ME oil flows are no longer a geopolitical imperative for us to enable. Nor are sustained, unrestricted maritime trade lanes. They cost us and benefit both our allies and enemies.

Zobel said:

---

I'm not so much interested or allergic to the isolationist label. To me it creates an arbitrary dividing line without any real value. We shouldn't pursue or avoid isolationism as an end in itself. We should pursue our interests, which may look like isolation in one instance and active involvement in the next.

The issue with the ME is there is minimum direct US interest in the region. What value it held for us was indirect for our partners in Europe, and in propping up the global system we created for our own net benefit (military benefit, at great economic cost). When that calculus changes - and it has - we absolutely should re-evaluate. The only compelling reason to continue to be involved in the ME is to prevent potential horrific loss of life and bloodshed. But, that comes at a cost of (relatively fewer) US lives and money.

Sustained ME oil flows are no longer a geopolitical imperative for us to enable. Nor are sustained, unrestricted maritime trade lanes. They cost us and benefit both our allies and enemies.

---

Yes, insanely logical take. Do what most benefits us in every occasion.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Does a growth mindset work in a world that's not growing? Demographic changes alluded to before will change all of these assumptions. Undermining us doesn't save them, nor is it sustainable long term with their situations.

---

How are we undermined by supporting allies and brokering expanded peace in a difficult region?

---

Peace is a luxury good. You bear the cost of stability as long as you can but we've passed that point. Your idea of global integration is unwinding, not getting stronger.

Edit: it's also worth asking, how many of those in the Middle East truly share a common interest with us? They harbor hamas and we can do nothing. They manipulate oil prices and we simply accept it. Let them bear the cost of their own stability.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Does a growth mindset work in a world that's not growing? Demographic changes alluded to before will change all of these assumptions. Undermining us doesn't save them, nor is it sustainable long term with their situations.

---

How are we undermined by supporting allies and brokering expanded peace in a difficult region?

---

Peace is a luxury good. You bear the cost of stability as long as you can but we've passed that point. Your idea of global integration is unwinding, not getting stronger.

Edit: it's also worth asking, how many of those in the Middle East truly share a common interest with us? They harbor hamas and we can do nothing. They manipulate oil prices and we simply accept it. Let them bear the cost of their own stability.

---

So you'd rather be on a permanent war footing? What exactly does "peace is a luxury good," mean? I don't think anyone responding to me has even begun to address the disruption to our economy and way of life that an isolationist US and increased global conflict would bring. We got a small taste of it during COVID when global supply chains were disrupted. F16 is still screaming about inflation. That level of inflation would be nothing compared to what you get if you have more conflicts like Ukraine and Gaza coupled with trade disputes, more oil price manipulation, and territorial disputes over trade routes and no U.S. Navy to serve as a police force.

---

A) I'm not sure how that relates to what I said. We as the states can't afford to foot the bill for the world's stability anymore. Smaller sphere of influence is still realistic.

B) I think it's self explanatory. It's not the natural state of man.

C) Again, isolationism isn't the only response or choice in this case but you seem to think it is. Our standard of living will only go down with the demographic demise many countries are facing (California is a leading indicator domestically as the price of family formation is too high). Businesses are already shifting back to Mexico and out of China in Asia anyways. Pirates have limitations even without our ships.

D) You're arguing desperately to hold on to something that's unsustainable - the idea of global partnership and citizenship at the level it has been. It's dead but it's deeply ingrained in elites that it's the future. Plebes see it coming and we're all preparing.

Sorry, but you're just wrong about the economic impact of the current global order. We are the economic losers the deal we created, not the winners.

At any rate the point stands. The majority of our trade GDP is regional, not global. It's less than 10% outside of the Americas. Compare that to China - as high as 70%. Germany nearly 50%. And we are not dependent on global trade to keep the lights on or feed our people. Without global trade, we are ok. Without global trade, China is in an energy crisis and a famine in a matter of months. This is a comparative game.

We can trade whenever and wherever we want. Everyone else? At our pleasure.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

It tells us that assuming someone doesn't have the best interests of the United States at heart because they also happen to have deep ties to another place/group is often a fallacious assumption. The US has valid reasons of national security and interest in supporting states like Israel in the region. Assuming Shapiro puts Israel ahead of the U.S. sounds a lot like a "dual loyalty" charge that has a long and ugly history, and one that Catholics have faced (look up the Know-Nothings and Thomas Nast cartoons).

---

I loathe politics except as freak show entertainment, but I think this is a good question. Christians say that you can't serve two masters. You might be able to get away with it as long as both your masters have a common interest and goal. However, at some point a choice must be made. As DeProfundis said, he has loyalty to America and the Vatican, but if there is conflict he will choose the Vatican. I'd say the same for myself in a more abstract way. I'm American and Christian, and if that conflicts then I'm picking the Christian part. I think it's fair to ask if someone has divided loyalties.

For instance, does Ben Shapiro want to influence America to benefit Israel to the detriment of America? I don't see what the US gains from supporting Israel in the Gaza conflict aside from a few more dollars for some weapons makers. There is certainly no tangible or strategic benefit for us, and likely much the opposite with all the political blowback across the world. So if someone is pushing for America to go all in supporting Israel in this conflict, I would get a little suspicious about their real loyalties

---

This is a very good point you make out of the gate. Unfortunately serving two masters, or worse, finding a way to force one master to fit the other is where many Americans are these days.

We should always be Christian first. Being American has taken on such disparate meanings these days I'm not even sure the true meaning. Which is why being Christian is so awesome. It offers something politics and nations cannot.